Cheating in the NFL has neglible consequences

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by ska///235i

Ok so you havent watched football for 20 years. TV and sports arw very different now a days.

I'll explain more when I get home

What is so different that makes willfully breaking a simple rule, cheating, an honorable thing, a right thing to do? What about cheating in a game sends a message that you or the rest of the football fan community want sent to young people who look up to sports figures as role models?

I'll see what you write when you get home and have the time.....I don't know what you are going to share with me, but I doubt that you will write something that demonstrates that cheating is now an acceptable approach to game play.

All the best.

The Wit of Cheats, the Courage of a Whore,
Are what ten thousand envy and adore:
All, all look up, with reverential Awe,
At crimes that 'scape, or triumph o'er the Law:
While Truth, Worth, Wisdom, daily they decry-
"Nothing is sacred now but Villainy"
― Alexander Pope, Epilogue to the Satires, Dialogue I

[ska///235i]

Originally Posted by tony20009

What is so different that makes willfully breaking a simple rule, cheating, an honorable thing, a right thing to do? What about cheating in a game sends a message that you or the rest of the football fan community want sent to young people who look up to sports figures as role models?

I'll see what you write when you get home and have the time.....I don't know what you are going to share with me, but I doubt that you will write something that demonstrates that cheating is now an acceptable approach to game play.

All the best.

The Wit of Cheats, the Courage of a Whore,
Are what ten thousand envy and adore:
All, all look up, with reverential Awe,
At crimes that 'scape, or triumph o'er the Law:
While Truth, Worth, Wisdom, daily they decry-
"Nothing is sacred now but Villainy"
― Alexander Pope, Epilogue to the Satires, Dialogue I

Ok, Patriots/Belachick/Brady cheats

You have your opinions and I have mines. You havent watch football for 20 years and when the media feed you stuff you only and will only accept one side of the story and made it your believe. But thats ok because thats what television and the net is doing these days.

So let me get this straight, you post a thread about the penalty of the Pats. You think that the punishment wasnt fair enough. Yet you havent watch football for 20 years and have no clue what the penalty means.

$1mil, 2 draft picks and 4 game suspension is HUGE in NFL terms. Dont try to argue this with me cuz you havent watch the game for 20 years. This isnt a crime and no one will go to jail. Its air in a ball, not murderer like Hernedez, OJ Simpson. This isnt Rice beating his wife nor AP beating his child and the hundreds of substance abuse...its a case of air pressure in a ball and even CNN, Bloomberg and every station have to chime in...why, cuz thats what TV do these days. They feed us whatever gets them high tv rating..ChaChing$$$

So what does this mean for me and you...absalutely nothing cuz Im still going to watch every game and Pat fans will cheer for their team, non Pat fans will hate them as long as they're winning

The end

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by ska///235i

Ok, Patriots/Belachick/Brady cheats

You have your opinions and I have mines. You havent watch football for 20 years and when the media feed you stuff you only and will only accept one side of the story and made it your believe. But thats ok because thats what television and the net is doing these days.

So let me get this straight, you post a thread about the penalty of the Pats. You think that the punishment wasnt fair enough. Yet you havent watch football for 20 years and have no clue what the penalty means.

$1mil, 2 draft picks and 4 game suspension is HUGE in NFL terms. Dont try to argue this with me cuz you havent watch the game for 20 years. This isnt a crime and no one will go to jail. Its air in a ball, not murderer like Hernedez, OJ Simpson. This isnt Rice beating his wife nor AP beating his child and the hundreds of substance abuse...its a case of air pressure in a ball and even CNN, Bloomberg and every station have to chime in...why, cuz thats what TV do these days. They feed us whatever gets them high tv rating..ChaChing$$$

So what does this mean for me and you...absalutely nothing cuz Im still going to watch every game and Pat fans will cheer for their team, non Pat fans will hate them as long as they're winning

The end

• Nobody has to feed me anything for me to know that willfully acting in contravention of stated rules to which one expressly agreed to adhere is cheating.
• I don't need to be fed anything to think that cheating is wrong.
• Nobody needs to feed me anything for me to know that millions of young people see sports figures like Mr. Brady as role models.
• I don't need to be fed anything, and I don't ever need to watch a football game, to know that a Super Bowl win isn't worth all that much money to a $2.5 billion organization. And what that means is that to the business owner, the penalties levied aren't worth much at all.
  • http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/dail...per-bowl-worth

What I do need to be "fed" is something that explains why anyone would vociferously defend cheaters and cheating by NFL players, owners and other team employees. I need to be "fed" something that'll help me understand what has happened to people's morals and ethics in U.S.

Red:
Please credibly quantify what exactly the cost of those penalties is.


All the best.

[ska///235i]

whats the point of further discussion when you obviously will not accept?

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by ska///235i

whats the point of further discussion when you obviously will not accept?

I'm not going to accept a line of reasoning that ignores the ethical grounds surrounding the matter and that in conjunction with doing so, offers no empirical basis for claiming that (1) cheating is a "right" thing to do and/or (2) that the penalties are in fact onerous to the team/team owner. That's where I stand because:

• I believe (hope) the ethical position I've advocated is self explanatory, but I'm willing to see someone's well reasoned argument asserting that cheating is okay or a good thing to do, and
• I've offered reasonable bases that support my positions about what quarterbacks know and what sums are meaningful to a team owner.

I've seen others attest to having a different point of view from mine, but I've not seen anyone offering objective, or even reasonably solid subjective, evidence that supports their position and arguments that refute mine. If someone actually has some/one, I'm happy to see it and I may even change my stance on the matter. I'm certainly not altering my view because someone or many ones say things like "Oh, you just don't like the Patriots" or because they offer some sort of red herring or deflecting points that don't directly address the matters at hand, those matters being:

• The rule on ball inflation is clear and known to all NFL players.
• The balls were willfully under inflated in complete disregard of the rules.
• The under inflation constitutes cheating.
• Cheating is wrong.
• The penalty assigned is a mere pittance for a $2.5 billion company.
• The penalty assigned to Mr. Brady is also a pittance to him.

So I ask you, on which of those points am I wrong?

All the best.

[ska///235i]

The balls were under inflated in the first half. Then was changed back to specs after half. Refs should check all balls before game time and during game time.

Brady is not 100% guilty as there is no evidence and have not been proven in court. Is all he said-she said.

Im not saying He did or didnt do it or known about it but you're innocent until proven guilty.

NFL fines are average in tens of thousands so a million dollar is a big fine regardless what the franchise is worth. They dont fine a penalty base off the net worth of a team.

Two first round draft is like taking your best player away from the team. I dont recall another team with the same punishment

4 game suspension.
Well do you think cheating by deflating a ball is equal to or worst than beating a child or wife or doing drugs amd drug enhancements? Well those offense will only get two games most

Also Ray Lewis was accuse of murder... Hes doing well now

Its all first world problems and god bless Merica!

[kprocivic]

New England fans are in denial. Your team cheated, you know they cheated move the fuck on. No need to explain your half ass logic.

[ska///235i]

Also the FIFA thing lasted for maybe three weeks the most

The baseball team hacking lasted 3 days of news

Yet some deflated balls are on going for almost a year

God bless Merica!

[kprocivic]

Originally Posted by ska///235i

Also the FIFA thing lasted for maybe three weeks the most

The baseball team hacking lasted 3 days of news

Yet some deflated balls are on going for almost a year

God bless Merica!

Cause this is the second time they got caught cheating.

[ska///235i]

Originally Posted by kprocivic

Cause this is the second time they got caught cheating.

Well that explains everything

Everyone move on please

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by ska///235i

The balls were under inflated in the first half. Then was changed back to specs after half. Refs should check all balls before game time and during game time.

Brady is not 100% guilty as there is no evidence and have not been proven in court. Is all he said-she said.

Im not saying He did or didnt do it or known about it but you're innocent until proven guilty.

NFL fines are average in tens of thousands so a million dollar is a big fine regardless what the franchise is worth. They dont fine a penalty base off the net worth of a team.

Two first round draft is like taking your best player away from the team. I dont recall another team with the same punishment

4 game suspension.
Well do you think cheating by deflating a ball is equal to or worst than beating a child or wife or doing drugs and drug enhancements? Well those offense will only get two games most. Also Ray Lewis was accuse of murder... He's doing well now

Its all first world problems and god bless Merica!

Red:
And in which half of the game do the rules allow for willfully under inflated balls? I guess from your comment it must be the first half?

Blue:
I think it safe to say that Mr. Brady noticed the under inflation, even if he wasn't party to it. Insofar as the Mr. Brady held those under inflated balls many times in the game's first half, and not once even so much as said, "Hey, I think this/these balls may be under inflated. Can we at least check, please?", we can all say that Mr. Brady is 100% guilty of not reporting an infraction that was known to him.

Again, my issue with the "deflategate" matter is the ethics of it, not whether it had an impact. If/when it's at least as empirically evident that other teams' QBs have done the same thing as Mr. Brady failed to do, I'll have exactly the same comments, perhaps more scathing.

As far as I'm concerned, the fact that any player is aware of an infraction and doesn't report it ASAP, as per the agreement they made with the NFL in accepting their job offer, an agreement which is on the WWW for all to see (https://secure.ethicspoint.com/domai...liancePlan.pdf), is a breach of the trust fans place in sports teams and their personnel to play by the rules.

Green:
Is the matter not one of employer and employee? What does a court of law have to do with what is or isn't proven in this case? Is there really any doubt that Mr. Brady didn't follow the NFL's code of conduct guidelines?

I ask you, what would your employer do if you were found to have clearly breached its code of conduct? I can tell you in my industry, most people would lose their jobs for violations of the codes of conduct set forth by management consulting and public accounting firms. And though they are well paid, they are nowhere near as well paid as Mr. Brady.

But pay isn't even relevant since we are talking about Mr. Brady. The fact is the man was raised Catholic and interned at Merril Lynch. There's no way you can tell me Mr. Brady wasn't taught and doesn't understand the principle of avoiding all appearances of impropriety, even when there may be none intended or in play. In light of that, I haven't and don't expect any different behavior from Mr. Brady than what I know he's been aware of as 'the right thing' for years on end.

Orange:
Best player on the team? Really? You honestly believe a novice player from college is a better player than a veteran? I suppose that's somewhat possible given the vigor of youth and so on, but I have a hard time thinking that new draftees on the whole are so good that they make or break team winnings on a consistent and recurring basis. (http://www.cleveland.com/pluto/index...erans_are.html) That said, if you show me some evidence that rookies are that good in comparison to veterans, I'd be willing to accept your assertion to that effect and reconsider whether I think the impact of the penalty is meaningfully greater by dint of the Pats' having lost those first round picks.

Purple:
I'm not going to answer the question of whether deflating a ball is worse than beating a child. I'm not because I asked you one simple question and you have yet to answer it. For your reference, the question I asked you can be found at the end of this post: http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...3&postcount=71 .

I'm also not going to respond because no matter what answer I give, there will unavoidably follow a lengthy debate on the philosophy of punishment, particularly Utilitarian vs. Retributivist vs. Compromise (Hart -- http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu...1&context=mulr) thinking on the matter. That you even posed the question you did suggests you either are bucking for that debate, or you aren't aware there is even a debate among those three positions. Not that it matters what philosophical tack I take for I suspect you'll but offer the classic objections to whichever one I pose, and that will just bore me.

Either way I haven't right now got the energy for that discussion; moreover, this isn't the place for it. Much as I like philosophy, I think one one actually has found there own dicta that work for oneself, it's best to express it via the positions they take on various matters than to layout the cognitive rationale for their specific thinking that led to their position(s) on those matters. I've done the former quite clearing in this thread. Accordingly, it should be quite clear to you and others that what I think be the lesser act between ball deflation and abuse/battery has absolutely nothing to do with why I think the penalties levied in the "deflategate" matter are insufficient. I bid you show me any rigorous thinker (and their rigorous, related thoughts) who disagrees.

All the best.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by ska///235i

Also the FIFA thing lasted for maybe three weeks the most

The baseball team hacking lasted 3 days of news

Yet some deflated balls are on going for almost a year

God bless Merica!

Not one of those organizations has a damn thing to do with "deflategate."

The FIFA matter (http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/nine-f...conspiracy-and) isn't going to generate much pre-trial discussion at all. Neither side is likely to ply their arguments in the court of public opinion, and why would they? The charges are far less straightforward and far less well understood than is whether a football was under inflated with regard to NLF rules and whether the quarterback who handled the ball over and over knew at any point prior to halftime that the ball was under inflated.

God teach people how to spell the word America, then bless them and America.

All the best.

[ska///235i]

You know what, I can type something here that doesnt make any sense and you will argue about it no matter what

So instead of doing that why dont you tell everyone whats the right thing to do? What should the punishment be? And whats the conclusion of your thread?

Lets sum it up so you can have the last say

[csu87]

Read through some of the comments on here and I cant seem to think that some of you didnt read the Wells report, just the cliffnotes that the media gave you.

All the evidence against the pats is circumstantial. From Wells saying he doesnt believe the explanations given to him by the equipment guys, to Wells saying he doesnt believe the Ref who measured the balls knows which gauge he used. If you read through the report, there was one gauge that read lower than the other. The ref said he thought he used the higher gauge at the start of the game, and the lower at halftime. Wells didnt agree and based his report on his OPINION of what actually happened. The differences in the gauges + the differences in Temps alone would account for the differences in the balls.

And those talking about spygate really need to get a clue. Spygate was about where they were taping games, not about spying on practices. Everyone up to the 2006 season was taping from the same locations that the Pats got busted for. Goodell sent a memo (not a rule) saying not to tape from that spot. Pats didnt listen, and the rule was changed after they were punished. The spying on practices rumor was from a disgruntled employee who was later debunked.

Even if he had the balls deflated, which has not been proven and will get overtuned in an impartial hearing (Goodell hearing the appeal of the punishment he handed down is a joke) it isnt worth 4 games. A fine, sure, but 4 games is in the realm of PEDs, Domestic abuse...

Also, need to add I am not a Pats fan, not a Brady fan but you gotta respect what they have done for the last decade+.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by csu87

Read through some of the comments on here and I cant [help but] think that some of you didn't read the Wells report, just the cliffnotes that the media gave you.

All the evidence against the pats is circumstantial. From Wells saying he doesnt believe the explanations given to him by the equipment guys, to Wells saying he doesnt believe the Ref who measured the balls knows which gauge he used. If you read through the report, there was one gauge that read lower than the other. The ref said he thought he used the higher gauge at the start of the game, and the lower at halftime. Wells didn't agree and based his report on his OPINION of what actually happened. The differences in the gauges + the differences in Temps alone would account for the differences in the balls.

And those talking about spygate really need to get a clue. Spygate was about where they were taping games, not about spying on practices. Everyone up to the 2006 season was taping from the same locations that the Pats got busted for. Goodell sent a memo (not a rule) saying not to tape from that spot. Pats didnt listen, and the rule was changed after they were punished. The spying on practices rumor was from a disgruntled employee who was later debunked.

Even if he had the balls deflated, which has not been proven and will get overtuned in an impartial hearing (Goodell hearing the appeal of the punishment he handed down is a joke) it isn't worth 4 games. A fine, sure, but 4 games is in the realm of PEDs, domestic abuse...

Also, need to add I am not a Pats fan, not a Brady fan but you gotta respect what they have done for the last decade+.

Red:
I'm not altogether sure you read it.

1. "Based on the evidence developed in connection with the investigation and summarized in this Report, we have concluded that it is more probable than not that New England Patriots personnel participated in violations of the NFL Playing Rules and were involved in a deliberate attempt to circumvent those rules."
2. "Based on the evidence, we also have concluded that it is more probable than not that Tom Brady was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities of McNally and Jastremski involving the release of air from Patriots game balls."
3. "...in our view, a contrary conclusion requires the acceptance of an implausible number of communications and events as benign coincidences."
4. "...we believe it is unlikely that an equipment assistant and a locker room attendant would deflate game balls without Brady's knowledge and approval."
5. "Brady personally was involved in the 2006 rule change that allowed each visiting team to supply its own game balls in accordance with the preferences of its quarterback, and it is reasonable to infer that during the process of advocating that rule change, Brady was likely to be (or become) familiar with the NFL rules regarding game balls, including the 12.5 psi minimum inflation level, although Brady denies having been aware of Rule 2 or the minimum inflation level until 2014 (despite approximately fourteen years as an NFL quarterback)."
6. "During his interview, Brady denied any knowledge of or involvement in any efforts to deflate game balls after the pre-game inspection by the game officials. He claimed that prior to the events surrounding the AFC Championship Game, he did not know McNally's name or anything about McNally's game-day responsibilities, including whether McNally had any role relating to game balls or the game officials. We found these claims not plausible and contradicted by other evidence. In fact, during his interview, Jastremski acknowledged that Brady knew McNally and McNally's role as Officials Locker Room attendant. Similarly, McNally told NFL Security that he had been personally told by Brady of Brady's inflation level preference."
7. "According to our scientific consultants, however, the reduction in pressure of the Patriots game balls cannot be explained completely by basic scientific principles, such as the Ideal Gas Law, based on the circumstances and conditions likely to have been present on the day of the AFC Championship Game."
8. "Exponent and Dr. Marlow agreed that the difference in the magnitude of the average pressure drops between the Patriots and Colts footballs is statistically significant, regardless of which of the two gauges was used to set the balls pre-game and test them at halftime and regardless of whether the starting pressure for the Colts game balls is assumed to be 13.0 or 13.1 psi."
9. "Exponent and Dr. Marlow further advised us that the variability in the Patriots halftime measurements suggests that the game balls did not start the game at or near the same pressure, even though they all measured at or near 12.5 psi when inspected by the referee. Exponent ruled out inconsistencies in the gauges used on the day of the AFC Championship Game (which appear to have worked reliably and consistently under the conditions in which they were used), “human factors ” ( i.e., variability caused by the particular individual who used the gauge), variations in the way a football is used or handled (i.e., the amount of impact a football has sustained or the way a football is held by a b all boy on the sideline) and differences in ball preparation (including the vigorous rubbing described by Coach Belichick during his January 24, 2015 press conference) as factors that impact inflation levels. Dr. Marlow agreed with that assessment."
10. "Based on the testing and analysis, however, Exponent concluded that, within the range of likely game conditions and circumstances studied, they could identify no set of credible environmental or physical factors that completely accounts for the Patriots halftime measurements or for the additional loss in air pressure exhibited by the Patriots game balls, as compared to the loss in air pressure exhibited by the Colts [sic] game balls. Dr. Marlow agreed with this conclusion. This absence of a credible scientific explanation for the Patriots halftime measurements tends to support a finding that human intervention may account for the additional loss of pressure exhibited by the Patriots balls."
11. "In reaching the conclusions set forth in this Report, we are mindful that the analyses performed by our scientific consultants necessarily rely on reasoned assumptions and that varying the applicable assumptions can have a material impact on the ultimate conclusions. We therefore have been careful not to give undue weight to the experimental results and have instead relied on the totality of the evidence developed during the investigation. Even putting 132 aside the experimental results, we believe that our conclusions are supported by the evidence in its entirety."

Source: Wells, Carp, and Reisner. "Investigative Report Concerning Footballs Used During the AFC Championship Game on January 18, 2015". Pages 121ff. [attached]

Now unless you are going to tell me that the people who collected and analyzed the information provided to Mr. Wells et al had not a clue about what they were doing, or that you think Mr. Wells et al are grossly mistaken in their read of the situation and info they received, or that you have pertinent information they did not have, what else need be said?


Blue:
The clue that folks interjecting Spygate into this discussion have not gotten is that Spygate has nothing to do with Deflategate, and thus has no place in this discussion no matter what be the circumstances and facts of Spygate.


Purple:
That's your opinion and you are free to stand on it. I strongly believe that in light of points five and six above, Mr. Brady's integrity/honesty is in question. I agree, however that the acts in question are not worth the penalty assigned to the Patriots and to Mr. Brady, but only because I believe those acts deserve a greater penalty, particularly for the Patriots organization.

Mr. Brady claims not to have known about the rule regarding the minimum inflation level; however, it is part of his job to know those rules. How do I know this? Because I read PDF page four of this document: https://secure.ethicspoint.com/domai...liancePlan.pdf . Whether Mr. Brady has played in the NFL for four days or 14 years, his obligation to know those rules and his obligations re: matters of non-compliance is no different.

Furthermore, the NFL's own ethical standards state, "Each of us is expected to adhere to the highest ethical and professional standards in carrying out 5 our responsibilities as NFL employees." What that means is that even if no other players from one's own or another team reports a ball under inflation, one still is expected to do so, even if one knows others don't or have not. The NFL's policy sets the bar for each individual at the "highest ethical and professional standards," rather than at the "lowest common denominator of ethical and professional conduct found among one's peers."

In accordance with the NFL's standard, Mr. Brady's ethical obligation was to report his suspicion of the under inflation during the game for that was his earliest and most relevant opportunity to do so. He had nothing to lose by doing so, and plenty to lose by not doing so. Things don't get more "no brainer-like" than that, unless, of course, one is of a mind to ignore one's ethical obligations and/or one is complicit in the misdeeds pertaining to the situation.

What Penalties Would I Have Assigned?
I would have assigned the following penalties:

• Mr. Brady
  • Restricted, for the entirety of the 2016 season, his play in the 2106 season to 10 minutes per quarter in the first half of the game and zero minutes in the second half.
  • Why?
    • Because Mr. Brady has by his actions and words called into question his own integrity, during the game itself, before it, and after it. I believe such a penalty keep to a minimum any impact of his seeming lack of integrity during the game.
    • Because Mr. Brady's team owner would be pissed about having to pay Mr. Brady's salary while not being able to get the most performance from his abilities.
    • Because seeing such penalties, other team owners know they would feel the same ire, thereby making it clear that they won't tolerate any sort of unethical behavior by their players. Odds are they would include clauses in player contracts that stipulate that players pay will be "docked" in proportion to any play time restrictions imposed by the NFL. (Perhaps such clauses already exist? I don't know.)
• Patriots Organization
  • A sum equal to the average gross revenue attributable to winning any one game and a Super Bowl. I don't know what that sum is, but whatever it is would be sufficient. I expect that the sum would amount to something between two to four games' worth of net earnings. The actual sum applicable to a team would depend on the team's profitability and revenue streams, but the proportional impact would be the same for any team unfortunate enough to be thus penalized.
  • Why?
    • Because NFL teams are a business and in all business organizations, the "tone at the top" defines how the entity's employes behave. No team owner from that point forward would choose to risk twice what s/he stands to earn by playing and winning a game. The owners then need only make clear to GMs, coaches, players, restroom attendants, etc. that the organization, they they owners, will not support them in matters of unethical or seemingly unethical conduct.
      
      From the standpoint of a team and its owner, football is a business. Accordingly, the penalty needs to be one that no business manager would find acceptable from a profit and loss perspective. In other words, it needs to be a sum that is high enough that it's impactful to a multi-billion dollar business, but that is low enough not to drive that business into insolvency. I think that the gross revenues that would amount to that from two games would accomplish those aims.

All the best.

[csu87]

Originally Posted by tony20009

Lots of stuff

Wow, I give you props for that response; must be a slow day at the office.

Yes, I read it. I have way too much free time at work. The general gist I was making, that you more probable than not, that I more probable than not didnt explain as well as I should have, is that the entire "More probable than not" stance, is completely based on Wells interpretation of the report. A report that he was paid, by the NFL, to prove that ball deflating occurred. If you read through the report through unbiased eyes, you can see that you can interpret the "findings" in many different ways. One being that sure, maybe something against the rules happened and Brady was involved, one being something against the rules happened and Brady wasnt involved, another being nothing against the rules happened, and so on. If this was a criminal trial, and this was the evidence brought forth, everyone would have been acquitted. It is all purely circumstantial with no actual facts or evidence.

There have also been numerous scientific studies showing that the balls would have lost pressure due to the conditions. But of course Wells didnt use any of those studies.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by csu87

Wow, I give you props for that response; must be a slow day at the office.

Yes, I read it. I have way too much free time at work. The general gist I was making, that you more probable than not, that I more probable than not didnt explain as well as I should have, is that the entire "More probable than not" stance, is completely based on Wells interpretation of the report. A report that he was paid, by the NFL, to prove that ball deflating occurred. If you read through the report through unbiased eyes, you can see that you can interpret the "findings" in many different ways. One being that sure, maybe something against the rules happened and Brady was involved, one being something against the rules happened and Brady wasnt involved, another being nothing against the rules happened, and so on. If this was a criminal trial, and this was the evidence brought forth, everyone would have been acquitted. It is all purely circumstantial with no actual facts or evidence.

There have also been numerous scientific studies showing that the balls would have lost pressure due to the conditions. But of course Wells didnt use any of those studies.

But it wasn't a criminal trial. Why do the same standards and burdens of proof need to exist? Even in court cases, there are differing burdens of proof for civil vs. criminal actions.

All the best.

[csu87]

Originally Posted by tony20009

But it wasn't a criminal trial. Why do the same standards and burdens of proof need to exist? Even in court cases, there are differing burdens of proof for civil vs. criminal actions.

All the best.

No, I understand that. Civil cases are much easier to get a "Guilty" since a lot less is needed to be proven. Just a lot of the comments I have seen about it on here and elsewhere seem to think it is an open-shut case, when it simply isnt. When the NFL doesnt reduce the suspension and this ends up going to appeals court, the suspension will be reduced. There is no question about that. The report was biased, and if they wanted to, Brady could commission his own report from a "Third Party" firm to take the exact same evidence and testimony and prove he had nothing to do with it.

The biggest problem going on now is that Goodell is the guy hearing the current appeal. Of course he isnt going to come out and say "I was wrong, we didnt have enough evidence to prove Brady was cheating, he gets no suspension for cheating and a fine for not cooperating." No one would admit that publicly, especially not someone with as much ego as Goodell.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by csu87

Wow, I give you props for that response; must be a slow day at the office.

Yes, I read it. I have way too much free time at work. The general gist I was making...is that the entire "More probable than not" stance, is completely based on Wells interpretation of the report. A report that he was paid, by the NFL, to prove that ball deflating occurred.

If you read through the report through unbiased eyes, you can see that you can interpret the "findings" in many different ways. One being that sure, maybe something against the rules happened and Brady was involved, one being something against the rules happened and Brady wasn't involved, another being nothing against the rules happened, and so on. If this was a criminal trial, and this was the evidence brought forth, everyone would have been acquitted. It is all purely circumstantial with no actual facts or evidence.

There have also been numerous scientific studies showing that the balls would have lost pressure due to the conditions. But of course Wells didnt use any of those studies.

Red:
Upon what do you think Mr. Goodell should have based his decision if not the Wells report? Do you think that would have led to a better or different outcome? Perhaps you think Mr. Goodell should have conducted his own interviews and analysis?

The burden of proof with which Mr. Wells et al were required to adhere is "preponderance of the evidence." Are you intentionally playing semantics by raising the point you did about the "more probable than not" verbiage? What exactly do you see as the substantive difference(s) between "more probable than not" and "preponderance of the evidence?"

For reference, the standard of proof required is stated in the Wells report and appears on page one of it.

Under the Policy, the “standard of proof required to find that a violation of the competitive rules has occurred” is a “Preponderance of the Evidence,” meaning that “as a whole, the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”

Blue:
I don't think the purpose of the report or the investigation was expressly to prove that Mr. Brady et al were cheating. "On January 23, 2015, the NFL publicly announced that it had retained Theodore V. Wells, Jr. and the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (“Paul, Weiss”) to conduct an investigation, together with NFL Executive Vice President Jeff Pash, into the footballs used by the Patriots during the AFC Championship Game. The investigation was conducted pursuant to the Policy on Integrity of the Game & Enforcement of Competitive Rules." The report is merely Mr. Wells' and his firm's communication of what they found during the investigation. It would surprise me if Paul, Weiss were charged with showing that malfeasance occurred rather than determining whether it occurred.

As I've stated, I'm no attorney, but I am a CPA and I have worked as an auditor. CPAs routinely, as I once did with KPMG, examine company financial and business records to determine whether the financial statements the companies publish "are free of material misstatement." A "material misstatement" is an assertion a company makes (typically, but not necessarily, a sum shown in its financial statements) that will mislead readers of those statements. Put another way, it's an assertion that cannot be corroborated by the preponderance of information in the company's financial records to such an extent that, were the assertion corrected, folks who would rely upon those figures to make decisions would likely alter their view of the company in question and may as a result make a different decision about the nature and extent of their interactions with the company. (The preceding is not a comprehensive discussion of what "materiality" is, but it is the gist of it. If you want to fully understand it, Google "materiality accounting." You'll find plenty of discussion on the matter.)

Examining data and events to determine whether something probably occurred is not at all the same as looking through business records expressly to find instances of errors having occurred, or to find actual wrongdoing. I suspect the very same conceptual distinction applies to the investigation Paul, Weiss performed. Moreover, just as an accountant's determination of what is or isn't material is in part a matter of professional judgement, which includes human judgement, I suspect the same degree of leeway existed in Paul, Weiss' investigative and analytical activities that lead to the report they submitted to Mr. Goodell.

At the end of the day, one either accepts that Mr. Wells et al knew what they were doing or one doesn't. It's clear that you think they were all but clueless idiots or complete novices in the exercise of professional judgement, examining the information available to them, and drawing conclusions from those two things.

Purple:
See the Purple section following the next quote.

Originally Posted by csu87

No, I understand that. Civil cases are much easier to get a "Guilty" since a lot less is needed to be proven. Just a lot of the comments I have seen about it on here and elsewhere seem to think it is an open-shut case, when it simply isn't.

When the NFL doesn't reduce the suspension and this ends up going to appeals court, the suspension will be reduced. There is no question about that. The report was biased, and if they wanted to, Brady could commission his own report from a "Third Party" firm to take the exact same evidence and testimony and prove he had nothing to do with it.

The biggest problem going on now is that Goodell is the guy hearing the current appeal. Of course he isnt going to come out and say "I was wrong, we didnt have enough evidence to prove Brady was cheating, he gets no suspension for cheating and a fine for not cooperating." No one would admit that publicly, especially not someone with as much ego as Goodell.

Red:
To be honest, I don't see court trials -- criminal or civil -- as having as a goal to get a guilty verdict. I'm not so "green" that I think prosecutors and defense attorneys don't see it that way or the reverse. They necessarily have to approach their jobs from a "winners and losers" perspective. As an observer, an "unofficial juror," I merely expect that the facts be fairly and completely presented.

That done, it's merely a matter of using one's sound reasoning (and make no mistake, I don't have a lot of confidence in the strength and rigor of many people's reasoning skill) to determine whether the facts show, to the requisite burden of proof, whether the accused did as alleged. Given that the Deflategate matter is not a court action, the burden of proof is considerably lower than it would be in even a court room. Also, that lower burden of proof is something with which, by accepting a job in the NFL and with the Patriots, all parties allegedly involved agreed long before the game commenced.

Based on what I have read in the report as well as from other sources (I've cited many of them in my earlier posts in this thread), I think given the standard of proof, Mr. Brady and the two equipment handlers are "guilty as charged." Moreover, though I wouldn't have fired Mr. Brady were I his boss, the only reasons I would not have done is because (1) I agree that there is a some uncertainty surrounding the nature and extent of his role in the matter, and (2) the dude wins games and were I a team owner and/or NFL commissioner, honestly but embarrassingly, I'd weigh his worth as a "game winner" against the cost of keeping him around as a potential cheater; as I wrote before, the NFL and its teams are about being profitable businesses. Be that as it may, that Mr. Brady (1) was involved, and (2) is highly likely to have noticed the under inflation of the balls is not all in doubt in my mind.

Green:
That outcome may happen, but that it will hardly seems a foregone conclusion to me. As I've said before, I don't see why this matter would ever make it to a courtroom trial. It could get a preliminary hearing or something like one, but I think a judge would toss it out, saying that there's no contractual breach or legal wrongdoing associated with the NFL's handling of the matter. Maybe one of those two things happened in the course of events, but I don't know that one did.

Orange:
Mr. Brady could have done that, and he could have asked to have it included with the information included in the Wells report. He didn't so do. I don't care why he didn't; the fact remains that he did not and he could have. At the very least, had he done, in the eyes of the "court of public opinion," the information in his own commissioned report may have cast matters in a more favorable-to-him light. That's without even considering that his experts' analysis may have brought to light information that credibly and strongly refutes the information/conclusions Paul, Weiss had/drew.

Blue:
Perhaps you are correct that Mr. Goodell wouldn't admit to having been mistaken or to have misconstrued the information he was given. I happen to think that part and parcel with the type of integrity and ethical behavior and standards for which I've been advocating in this thread is that he would do exactly that if in fact additional information shows/suggests he should. If it be so that the Mr. Wells and his colleagues incorrectly (or worse) developed their report, I also believe Mr. Goodell should recant not only for Mr. Brady, but more importantly, for the two equipment handlers who, unlike Mr. Brady, got fired and who almost certainly haven't deep reserves of money to easily weather having been fired.

Purple:
Perhaps not all the details are "open and shut." Perhaps the overall read of the events that Mr. Wells and Mr. Goodell took is mistaken. That seems unlikely to me, and it seems especially unlikely re: Mr. Brady given his actions. You write about "things" not being "open and shut," but there are some things that are indisputable:

• Either Mr. McNally lied about having met and spoken with Mr. Brady, or Mr. Brady lied about his not knowing Mr. McNally. Which of the two do you think more likely to lie in light of the potential consequences?
  
  It's plain to me that Mr. McNally had more reason to lie and say that he didn't know and never interacted with Mr. Brady personally. Why? Well, assuming the two had already colluded to under inflate the balls, what's one more dishonorable act? Also, Mr. Brady is rich as hell and will be for the rest of his life; he's been a very winning QB and playing pro football for 14 years. How could he not be? He damn sure should be. In return for "saving his skin" (lying), Mr. Brady has ample cash he could channel Mr. McNally's way in gratitude for corroborating Mr. Brady's statements. In contrast, there's nothing for Mr. Brady to gain from admitting prior interactions with Mr. McNally, but plenty to gain from denying them.
  
  Now that doesn't show guilt or innocence, but it does clarify who has what kind of motive to aver one way or the other.
• Mr. Brady has by other acts shown that he has little regard for NFL rules and will do what he wants to. The NFL guideline/rule (not a game-play rule) along with earlier mentioned one re: reporting rule violations ASAP, is the following one.

"... the NFL expects you to recognize and avoid activities and relationships that involve, or might appear to involve, conflicts of interest, as well as behavior that may cause embarrassment to the NFL."

Now where I come from, the principles "avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest" and maintaining the "highest ethical standards," the standard of conduct to which both Mr. Brady and Mssrs. McNally and Jastremski agreed upon accepting their jobs with the NFL, makes everything having to do with the gifts Mr. Brady proffered to his colleagues, to say nothing of willfully under inflating the balls and not reporting so much as the ball's seeming like maybe it was under inflated.

As I've said before, and given the "preponderance of evidence" burden of proof, my "issue" with the whole of Deflategate is the the ethics, or more to the point, the lack thereof, of it. The balls being under inflated, in and of themselves, doesn't bother me. It's the conduct of the people involved, or allegedly involved, that I find deplorable. That's especially so for Mr. "24 million dollar contract" Brady. That man is and has been compensated more than enough to justify his upholding and living by the highest ethical standards.

I don't make $7 million/year (or more than that LOL), and from the very start of my career when I earned less than $100K/year as well as later when I came to earn more than that, I have been able to live by very high personal and professional ethical standards, and in doing so I've managed to enjoy a very comfortable lifestyle, one with no ethical regrets. I'll wager you don't make that kind of money either. Do you have difficulty living with and consistently demonstrating high ethical standards?

• Paul, Weiss did consider that temperature variances could effect deflation in the balls. They said as much in the report and they provided in the report the details of the nature and extent of empirical testing -- for both the balls and the gauges -- their experts, Exponent, conducted to determine whether temperature variances alone could account for the difference between the required minimum ball pressure and the observed ball pressure at halftime.
  
  So I ask you, which of the following is it that you find to be not "clear cut?"
  • Facts that Exponent were given to apply in conducting their analysis?
  • The method they used to perform their analysis?
  • Or is it that you think Exponent are not qualified and capable to perform the relevant tests and interpret the results of those tests?

You write that on some findings (you haven't indicated what specific key findings) there are varying ways to interpret them. Well, of course there are; it's not as though anyone has video/audio tape evidence of acts in question. But that degree of proof -- beyond all reasonable doubt -- isn't expected or required, and neither are the actors entitled to it.

Nonetheless, different individuals can yet arrive at different interpretations/conclusions based on the information obtained during the investigation. That different folks can and may arrive at different conclusions doesn't at all suggest that all or any of those different conclusions are the least bit sensible, plausible, or probable in association with the burden of proof required and the information available.

For example, based on all the evidence I have about deer, when I see one on the side of the road, I'm going to conclude that it is a wild deer and not one that escaped from a zoo. I know damn well that there are deer in the zoo, and I know it's not entirely impossible for one to escape and end up trotting to when I am on the road. Even so, it's more probable that deer is wild one and not a zoo deer. That's how "preponderance of evidence" works.

In light of that, I'm asking you what specific elements of the Wells report do you take exception with to the extent that you think they more probably show "the deer beside the road is from a zoo," so to speak? I've very clearly noted what points in the Wells report lead to my agreeing with the conclusions Paul, Weiss drew. I'm merely asking you to afford me the same courtesy in support of your position.

All the best.

[stimpy]

lol at the headline readers here.

Before calling the Patriots cheaters, do yourself a favor and spend some time reading the facts of both Spygate and Deflategate.

If you think Spygate was simply the Patriots video taping the other teams signals, you're wrong. That part is completely legal and it was just the location they were doing it from (which was legal just prior) and quite frankly, made zero difference.

http://yourteamcheats.com/what-is-spygate

Deflategate is a witch hunt. There's been hundreds of reports from universities/individuals that prove this with the ideal gas law. Still think 11 of the 12 balls were 2 PSI under the allowed 12.5 PSI? Think again. That was a botched report by Chris Mortensen. Did you know that only one ball was significantly deflated and it happened to be the one the Colts intercepted (Read up on sting by Grigson and Kensil)? Did you know that 3 of the 4 Colts balls that were tested were BELOW the 12.5 PSI limit? Odd considering the Colts reported this as a possible issue prior to the game to the NFL. I would of thought they would make sure their balls are above the limit...

Get yourself educated here -
http://yourteamcheats.com/what-is-deflategate/

Despite there being absolutely no evidence of the Patriots doing anything wrong, did you know that there has been teams that have either admitted or even found guilty of doctoring the football and got no punishment or a small one?

92-05 - Player on several teams admits that it's common practice for every team to let a little air out of football, no punishment
2006 - Texans admit to deflating football, no punishment.
2014 - Panthers get caught warming the football in a game below 15 degree's, no punishment.
2015 - Packers QB Rogers admits to overinflating the football, no punishment

Feel free to use this site to check your own teams wrong doings while you're at it.
http://yourteamcheats.com/

I'm looking forward to a full season of the NFL because there will be data from over 300 games of preseason, regular season, and post season games. Data that will include before the game, halftime, and after the game PSI measurements. Data that has never been recorded before and I'm willing to bet the house that that data will exonerate the Patriots or the data will never be presented to hide the truth and justify the cost of the 5 million dollar witch hunt report that Wells presented.

If Goodell was smart he would of nipped this in the butt early on and/or delayed punishment until these results were gotten. Instead this nonsense is going to be brought up in in a court case that they have no dream of winning and will further tarnish the shield that Goodell is so protective of despite his actions with AP, Ray Rice, etc.

"More probable than not that Brady was generally aware..."

Are you kidding me?

[larryn]

Originally Posted by tony20009

[COLOR=Red][<snip redundant interpretations>
In light of that, I'm asking you what specific elements of the Wells report do you take exception with to the extent that you think they more probably show "the deer beside the road is from a zoo," so to speak? I've very clearly noted what points in the Wells report lead to my agreeing with the conclusions Paul, Weiss drew. I'm merely asking you to afford me the same courtesy in support of your position.

All the best.

All the best to you as well.

He already abundantly and clearly stated that, and in reading your assertations, you did not counter his statements. You are choosing your opinion, which I also do not agree with.

Three simple things that do not need a day of your time to respond to, because there is no response to them. They are fact.

• There were two guages that read different pressures, yet still allowed to be used, clearing showing the lazy and inconcequential attitude towards ball pressure reading (no logging, differing guages)
• It is easily reproducible to mimic and exceed the the scenario in the game with a combination of science and differing guages
• There were near equal readings for balls for both teams (before time ran out to continue reading ball pressures)

"Mr. Brady" never claimed to not know about the ball pressure rules. I'm not sure where you got that from, and you make a lot of assertations based on him claiming to not know the rules of the sport.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by larryn

All the best to you as well.

He already abundantly and clearly stated that, and in reading your assertations, you did not counter his statements. You are choosing your opinion, which I also do not agree with.

Three simple things that do not need a day of your time to respond to, because there is no response to them. They are fact.

• There were two guages that read different pressures, yet still allowed to be used, clearing showing the lazy and inconcequential attitude towards ball pressure reading (no logging, differing guages)
• It is easily reproducible to mimic and exceed the the scenario in the game with a combination of science and differing guages
• There were near equal readings for balls for both teams (before time ran out to continue reading ball pressures)

"Mr. Brady" never claimed to not know about the ball pressure rules. I'm not sure where you got that from, and you make a lot of assertations based on him claiming to not know the rules of the sport.

I will look again at the matter of the gauges and respond.

As for what Mr. Brady knew (or didn't) about ball inflation rules, I got that from PDF page 133 of the Wells report.

All the best.